Statistical Analysis. Humor. Knicks.

Menu

Fields of (2nd Round) Gold, Part II

Back in December, when Landry Fields was named Eastern Conference Rookie of the Month for November, I broke down his first month in the NBA and compared it to other notable 2nd round draft picks. Back then he compared favorably to Manu Ginobili, arguably the greatest second round pick since the draft went to two rounds in 1989. With Fields placing fourth in Rookie of the Year balloting, I thought it would be a good time to see if Fields’ first season remained truly one of the great rookie performances by a 2nd round draftee.

It is rare for 2nd round draft picks to be featured in Rookie of the Year voting. The high-profile draft picks have an advantage as they are not only famous, but they also step onto struggling teams that are able to provide a lot minutes of playing time. Still, every few years there is a second rounder that gains league wide notice. Ryan Gomes, Jorge Garbajosa, Paul Milsap, Juan Carlos Navarro, and Marc Gasol were all 2nd round picks that managed to crack the top ten in ROY balloting.

Was Fields the highest placing 2nd rounder ever? The answer is no, though he did place as high as Ginobili did in 2003, four years after being taken 57th by the Spurs. There have been two 2nd rounders that managed to place third: Luis Scola in 2008 (six years after he was drafted 55th by the Rockets), and center Marc Jackson in 2001 (four years after being taken 37th in 1997).

So by Rookie of the Year balloting, Fields posted a remarkably good rookie season, but not the greatest by a 2nd round pick. But voting, of course, is subjective, and its hard to draw any worthwhile conclusions from the ballots. Far better is to look at the large sample size of one entire 82 game season to see how his numbers compare to other great 2nd round picks.

Fields’ 2541 minutes were the third most of any 2nd round rookie since 1989. Only Mario Chalmers (34th pick in 2008) and Nick Van Exel (37th pick in 1993) played more minutes their rookie years. The question then becomes: what did Fields do in those minutes, and how does his performance compare to the other great rookie seasons posted by 2nd round selections:

Player

Points/36

Rebounds/36

Assists/36

TO/36

TS%

PER

Landry Fields

11.3

7.4

2.2

1.5

.598

13.5

Manu Ginobili

13.2

4.1

3.5

2.5

.556

14.7

Mbah a Moute

10.1

8.3

1.5

1.7

.516

12.3

Carl Landry

17.3

10.5

1.1

1.3

.641

21.4

Marcus Thornton

20.3

4.1

2.2

1.5

.550

17.4

Dejuan Blair

15.4

12.7

1.6

2.7

.564

17.7

A strong showing, no doubt, but clearly not as special of a season as his first month promised. By season end much of the Landry Fields excitement that Knick fans enjoyed early had largely worn off. It appeared to the eye that Fields regressed as the season wore on, culminating in an uninspired playoff performance.

Did the Carmelo Anthony trade truly knock Fields off his game? Or was it that Fields hit the proverbial “rookie wall”? Or, was it that our eyes were deceiving us, and that statistically, Fields remained as productive at the end of the season as he was at the beginning?

Here is a breakdown of Fields’ season:

Points/36

Rebounds/36

Assists/36

Turnovers/36

3 Point %

TS%

Games 1-27

11.7

8.5

2.1

1.52

35.1

.604

Games 28-54*

10.5

7.3

2.3

1.55

44.0

.633

Games 55-82

11.7

6.2

2.2

1.47

38.1

.546

Total

11.3

7.4

2.2

1.51

39.3

.598

(*Carmelo Anthony played his first game as a Knick in game # 55)

Surprisingly, Fields’ scoring volume didn’t drop off at all during the final third of the season. In fact, it went up, averaging 1.2 points more than he did during the middle third. Similarly, his turnovers dropped significantly, which is a positive sign for any rookie. His assists stayed consistent too, and though his 3-point percentage dipped, it remained high for a player who supposedly lacked an outside shot entering the league (and especially considering his attempts/36 increased during the timeframe). At Stanford, Fields shot just 33% from three point range his senior year—a rate he eclipsed even after hitting his “rookie wall”.

On the other hand, Fields’ rebounding and shooting efficiency tailed off significantly in the final third of the season. This was a troubling trend for Knick fans mainly because those were two areas of excellence that separated him from your average rookie swingman. During the first third of the season Fields shot a blistering TS% of .604 while leading all guards in rebounding. As the season progressed his efficiency actually increased while his rebounding slipped. Then, after the Carmelo Anthony trade, his efficiency began to slide as well.

So, was it the Carmelo Anthony trade that was Fields’ undoing?

It seems strange that this could be the case. During the tumultuous lead-up to the trade Fields’ name was forefront in trade negotiations. Yet somehow closure to the speculation supposedly made the rookie crack? It seems unlikely, especially considering the numbers show that Fields’ rebounding had already dropped significantly during the month leading up to the trade, and it seems odd that Anthony’s presence would cause any of his teammates to become suddenly worse at rebounding. Anthony’s rebound rate is only slightly better than Chandler or Gallinari’s (and obviously considerably worse than their combined rates, which was the void he stepped into). Additionally, for somebody who was seemingly lost in the isolation offense Billups and Anthony ran, Fields still managed to increase his scoring volume. For these reasons it is hard to finger the Carmelo Anthony trade as the reason for Fields’ decline.

Was it the mythological “Rookie Wall” then?

Though Fields’ numbers dipped in some areas as the season progressed, it wasn’t until the playoffs that they fell off the proverbial cliff. His totals were strong across the board, not only for a second round draft pick, but for any NBA player. More likely than anything, Fields’ post All-Star break performance represented a regression to the mean. It was unrealistic to expect a rookie who shot 33% from three-point range in college to come to the pros and shoot 44%.

So what can we expect moving forward? Could Fields develop his game and join Manu Ginobili, Carlos Boozer, and Gilbert Arenas as one of the all-time great 2nd round draft finds? If he can somehow manage to sustain his 2010 first-half production over the course of successive seasons, the answer is yes. But more likely, Fields will enjoy a long career as an unheralded player, possibly like Luc Mbah a Moute—a low usage, strong rebounding, highly intelligent player that nicely compliments the high usage players around him.

But then there is the pessimism that is endemic among the downtrodden Knick fans that have endured an entire decade of joyless basketball. Fields looked dreadful in the playoffs—lost on offense and abused by Ray Allen on the defensive end. For the pessimists in the house, another comp could be the career of former Cavalier Cedric Henderson. Henderson was a 6’7” swingman who’d played four years of college ball before being selected 44th in the 1997 draft. Henderson played his way into a starting role his rookie year, playing 2527 minutes for a team that made the playoffs. The Cavs lost in four that year, Henderson performing poorly at the end. He then went on to decline in production for the next few years until he took his talents to Europe’s finest cities.

If for no other reason than to watch further episodes of the Andy and Landry Show, let’s hope Fields bounces back from his post-season malaise and sticks in the league a long, long time. Considering the Knicks’ roster composition, a lot of the team’s future success rides on the shoulders of Landry Fields.

84 comments on “Fields of (2nd Round) Gold, Part II”

However negative people felt about him by March, I think there is no other way to look at Landry’s first season than as a great draft pick and a huge win for the team. He exceeded expectations and then some. And he is smart and affable and is probably in a gym right now.

Quite the read. Very nice work. I’d be more than happy to continue to get above average performance out of Fields. What we need more than anything is solid rebounding and efficient scoring. As long as he can continue to provide that, he will remain a steal. I’ve complained in the past that he needs to develop a “go-to” scoring move but I’d like to withdraw that in favor of seeing him do more to take advantage of the open looks he should get playing with high volume scorers. A big improvement on defense would be very helpful as well.

Landry gave us great value last year because he unexpectedly plugged the massive gaping hole we had at SG before the season. We were all waiting for Kelenna Guffman- uh, I mean Azubuike, to join the team and hoping Bill Walker might be the answer as the starting 2. I mean, we had nothing.

We’re still thin at the two. I think the team would really benefit from a SG who can put the ball on the floor, drive to the hole and finish. This isn’t exactly Landry’s strong suit. Towards the end of the season it seemed like Landry was forever getting the ball wide open on the wing only to make a couple of awkward dribbles and throw up an ugly (and missed) layup attempt.

He’s a nice player, should be a good role player in the league for many years. The people who think he’s a superstar in waiting or was the MVP of the team are delusional.

I love Landry as much as the next guy, but it’s difficult to imagine that he could end up in the same paragraph as a guy like Ginobili. Manu was one of the best international players in the world before he ever showed up in the NBA, with athleticism and moves that Landry just doesn’t have (although Fields may have a higher vertical). Manu has managed to put up all these numbers with a usage in the mid-20s. Landry’s efficiency numbers look roughly similar but on 1/2 the usage. His sky-high efficiency numbers existed mostly because he was shooting so well from 3 and because a fair amount of his other points came on O-rebound putbacks and great cuts to the basket. As his rebounding decreased slightly and he was looking to get more shots by driving the ball, he looked, well, awful.

It’s tough to see how Landry could ever get his usage into the 20 range without a massive dropoff in efficiency. He’s not going to get more offensive rebounds than he did when he was an unknown. As the year went on, teams were ready for his basket cuts and took them away. He is unlikely to shoot in the mid 40’s from 3 like he did for much of the season. And unless he greatly upgrades his dribble-drive game, which is doubtful (not enough foot speed and side-side athleticism), the only place where he can make meaningful upgrades is his midrange game — from 3-9 and 10-15 feet, he shot less than 30% from the field on just 1.2 shots/game total.

I think the best way for Fields to help us is by working his butt off on defense and camping out from 3 — sort of be a poor man’s Bruce Bowen. I don’t think he belongs anywhere near the same conversation as Ginobili, who will probably go to the hall of fame.

For much of the early part of the season we heard from commentators that Fields was the top rebounding guard in the entire league. His rebounding did drop off significantly in the second half of the season, and by mainstream standards (rebounds per game) Dwayne Wade ended the year as the best rebounding guard in the league (by a fraction of a % over Fields). However, by per36 measure Fields averaged an entire rebound more than Wade (and two entire rebounds more than 3rd best rebounding guard Dorell Wright). Also, Fields’ rebound rate was best among guards, besting Wade 11.7% to 10.2%.

it seems odd that Anthony’s presence would cause any of his teammates to become suddenly worse at rebounding. Anthony’s rebound rate is only slightly better than Chandler or Gallinari’s (and obviously considerably worse than their combined rates, which was the void he stepped into).

I don’t agree with this. Melo had a TRB% of 10.6 as a Knick, Gallo had 7.8. That’s a big difference. Ill Will was closer at 9.8. Also, Gallo and Chandler together would take up two spots on the court, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare their combined total to Melo, prolly more fair to look at Melo + Shawne Williams vs. Gallo + Chandler, since that’s how it ended up playing out. (Melo/Shawne is 20.9, vs. Gallo/Chandler at 17.6 – a pretty big difference that could explain a lot of Fields’ decline).

I’ve got a non-statistically validated theory that defensive rebounding is pretty overrated – a lot of defensive rebounds are just there for the taking for whoever cares enough to grab them. A lot of defensive rebounds get misattributed because a big man tips the ball out, or blocks out his man. Look at David Lee – he grabbed a zillion rebounds last year but the team rebounding % was actually lower when he was on the court. Same thing for him this year in GS.

Just like we know there are ways to pad your stats when it comes to points, I think there are ways to pad your stats when it comes to rebounds – you can chase the ball instead of boxing out, not step out to challenge shots so you’re in position for a rebound, or just be the guy who always grabs the rebound when there’s three teammates near the ball. I’m not necessarily saying Landry’s doing this, just that rebounding’s a stat we haven’t fully figured out yet.

outoftowner:
I’ve got a non-statistically validated theory that defensive rebounding is pretty overrated – a lot of defensive rebounds are just there for the taking for whoever cares enough to grab them.

Yeah, that’s been a criticism for a while of all-in-one’s like Berri’s which place such importance on rebounding. Some of the newer technologies (like Sportvu) break down rebounds by whether an opponent was within 1.5 feet of the rebounder, or whether it was a freebie rebound, etc. It’s highly likely that the more technologically interested teams already have data showing who’s a rebound stat-padder and who the players are that are really getting in-traffic contested rebounds.

The same could be said for guys who have artificially padded TS% numbers because they’re the guys who take technical free throws and also the 4-6 free throws at the end of every game when the other team is fouling to extend the game. Those are free throws that improve TS% not because of any real ability to draw fouls, but just because someone decided they should be the ones that shoot. It would be interesting to see how many of these free throws someone like Chauncey Billups takes, and what his non-adulterated TS% would be without them.

Frank: The same could be said for guys who have artificially padded TS% numbers because they’re the guys who take technical free throws and also the 4-6 free throws at the end of every game when the other team is fouling to extend the game. Those are free throws that improve TS% not because of any real ability to draw fouls, but just because someone decided they should be the ones that shoot. It would be interesting to see how many of these free throws someone like Chauncey Billups takes, and what his non-adulterated TS% would be without them.

These are the guys chosen bc they shoot such a great % so that renders that theory a little moot.

On the rebounding issue I refer to my Phil Weber anecdote from about a year ago when I chatted with him on the street and he told me directly that Lee did not help on D because he was concerned about padding his rebound stats. This happens. Fact. Shoots big holes in Berri.

cgreene: These are the guys chosen bc they shoot such a great % so that renders that theory a little moot.

That’s exactly my point – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously they’re great FT shooters so that’s why they are chosen to shoot. But when we are “grading” players on how “efficient” they are based on TS%, these freebie free throws – FTs that these players were given rather than earned – artificially increase their efficiency when in fact they have no bearing on how “efficiently” they play the game.

As for Melo’s impact on Fields- and I think Billups may have had more to do with this- I think that Fields tended to get the ball on kick-outs a little later in the shot clock than earlier in the year so he was put in more situations where he had create his own shot (rather than just getting the ball back to Felton to reset the offense if he didn’t have an open jumper).
If I’m Fields this summer I’d be working on a 15 foot pull up jumper- he’s just not quick enough nor a good enough ball-handler to get into the lane when starting a drive from beyond the three point line. He probably needs to quicken his release a bit as well. If he can do those two things he should able boost his usage numbers while still keeping his efficiency high. This goes for Walker and Shawne Williams as well- in the playoffs the Celtics ran those guys off the three point line and none of them could hit anything off of the dribble.

outoftowner: I don’t agree with this.Melo had a TRB% of 10.6 as a Knick, Gallo had 7.8.That’s a big difference.Ill Will was closer at 9.8.Also, Gallo and Chandler together would take up two spots on the court, so it doesn’t make any sense to compare their combined total to Melo, prolly more fair to look at Melo + Shawne Williams vs. Gallo + Chandler, since that’s how it ended up playing out.(Melo/Shawne is 20.9, vs. Gallo/Chandler at 17.6 – a pretty big difference that could explain a lot of Fields’ decline).

I don’t think that explains Field’s decline because Fields’ rebounding was in decline long before Anthony came over from Denver.

I think many things have factored into Fields’ decline – Melo stealing his rebounds, the league playing him tighter at the 3 pt line and taking away his backdoor cuts, and also the rookie wall which I think is a real thing.

I think the thing hurting Fields’ development the most is that he’s playing out of position at the two and has a hard time defending quicker guards.

Just for kicks, I compared him to a forward we all love, Gerald Wallace, in his breakout year:

Offensively, through rebounding, ts%, fts and 3pt%, Fields is clearly superior. Defense is where he just doesn’t match up.
Maybe he’s just not the athlete that Wallace is? Fields is fast and a good leaper, but doesn’t have great side to side quickness needed to defend top guards. Although I think Fields can learn to be a better defender as well as add more muscle, I think it’s very hard to add that kind of quickness to one’s game. If he can get crafty like a Battier, he could still play the two but he’s probably more suited to guard threes.

As valiantly as he played the two this year, I think he would be better off as a three for sure. I’m actually surprised we never saw him at the 3 with Melo at the 4 and Stat at the 5, with TD at the 2. Seems like D’Antoni would love those matchups.

Frank: That’s exactly my point – it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.Obviously they’re great FT shooters so that’s why they are chosen to shoot. But when we are “grading” players on how “efficient” they are based on TS%, these freebie free throws – FTs that these players were given rather than earned – artificially increase their efficiency when in fact they have no bearing on how “efficiently” they play the game.

The other things that skew TS% are playing with a guy who gets in the bonus and getting and1’s. I’m sure there are others that we haven’t thought of yet.

I like what Frank and Nicos said about the midrange jumpshot. I also think Fields can do a lot to improve the speed of his release. He shoots a set shot, which already demands additional space to get off. Add to that that he really only seems comfortable shooting when he has some time to step into a shot, and I think that’s why we saw him in the playoffs turning down all these semi-open shots with disastrous results. Ginobili shoots a set shot as well, but he gets it out of his hands much more quickly than Fields.

I don’t think Fields will ever be even close to as good as Manu but comparing just rookie years the difference is not that great. Manu was not that much more of a scorer his rookie year, and his better passing is pretty much offset by Fields’ better rebounding. I would say that based solely on their rookie years, especially considering Manu was 25, Fields compares pretty well to Manu.

The question is if Fields will take huge steps forward over the next two years like Manu did. I don’t think we have any way to really know. If he improves over each of the next two offseasons we will be looking at a very good player, if he doesn’t we will be looking at a nice rotation player. I think Manu is obviously setting the bar too high but I think Bruce Bowen is setting the bar way too low.

I do not think it is completely out of the question that Fields will become at least a solid scorer. A couple quick examples of wings that were low usage scorers as rookies but became better were Granger and Iguodala:

As you can see Fields is comparable to both players and Iguodala became a solid scorer while Granger became a high usage one. I think Fields’ possibilities are all over the place and his ceiling is still quite high.

Fields and Ginobili don’t really have much in common. The only reason they are compared to each other in this piece is because Ginobili is the gold standard of second round picks. To turn the 55th pick into a franchise player is the kind of coup that gives the fans of all teams hope– especially those that continually trade away lottery picks for the likes of Eddy Curry and Stephon Marbury. Outside of that, it really doesn’t do a whole lot of good to measure up Fields to Manu. I agree that guys like Granger, Igudala, Battier, and even GHill (as he was compared here early in the season), along with numerous others, are all more useful comparisons.

Great post. I am going to agree that Fields and Manu have little in common. I think Grant Hill is a much better comparison.

Fields’ rebound percentage was higher than Wade’s. Personally, I think of Fields more as a tweener sg/sf and would probably dock him a little for that. I agree though that putting Fields at the 3 seems like an interesting idea.

Re free throws at the end of the game and ts%, not sure why that’s an issue. The “designated shooters” are adding real value by making those free throws rather than missing them. You can’t just take it for granted that people will make those free throws.

And re Lee – This is the same Phil Weber who thought Amare and Rudy Gay would be a great tandem?

Lee may have dogged it on defense and padded his stats. But let’s be honest, he would have fouled out of every game in 20 minutes if he didn’t given the personnel D’Antoni put out on the floor in 2010. That was a lost season and Lee made the most of it. Also, I think the Knicks were actually better defensive rebounding team with Lee on the court in 2010 but suffered on the offensive end.

I have always found it a little weird when anyone calls Lee a stat padder or criticizes him for being a defensive liability, given that Amare was his replacement. Does Phil Weber think that Amare is a good defender? Does Amare have some special skill for grabbing just important rebounds? Not that I have seen…

Grant was much more of a slasher and did not have much of a perimeter game to speak of. Hill was also a very good passer– in his peak seasons he was around 7 assists per game. Landry has nowhere near the ability to create that much offense with his passing and I doubt he ever will. Prime-era Grant Hill also had a real knack for getting to the free throw line, averaging upwards of 7 attempts per game. Landry rarely draws contact; he got to the line 2.1 times per 36 minutes.

Josh Childress is the best comp for Landry Fields I think. Compare their age 22 seasons:

TS%
Childress .626
Fields .598

eFG%
Childress .583
Fields .568

TRB%
Childress 10.3
Fields 11.7

AST%
Childress 9.4
Fields 9.0

TOV%
Childress 14.6
Fields 13.8

USG%
Childress 14.0
Fields 13.5

PER
Childress 15.8
Fields 13.5

WS/48
Childress .121
Fields .100

Childress was a little bit better, but his age 22 season was his second NBA season while Landry’s age 22 season was his rookie campaign. Childress is 6’8, 210 and Landry is 6’7″, 210. They both played at Stanford.

Re free throws at the end of the game and ts%, not sure why that’s an issue. The “designated shooters” are adding real value by making those free throws rather than missing them. You can’t just take it for granted that people will make those free throws.

And re Lee – This is the same Phil Weber who thought Amare and Rudy Gay would be a great tandem?

Lee may have dogged it on defense and padded his stats. But let’s be honest, he would have fouled out of every game in 20 minutes if he didn’t given the personnel D’Antoni put out on the floor in 2010. That was a lost season and Lee made the most of it. Also, I think the Knicks were actually better defensive rebounding team with Lee on the court in 2010 but suffered on the offensive end.

I have always found it a little weird when anyone calls Lee a stat padder or criticizes him for being a defensive liability, given that Amare was his replacement. Does Phil Weber think that Amare is a good defender? Does Amare have some special skill for grabbing just important rebounds? Not that I have seen…

The thing with TS% and free throws is that making free throws at a TS% rate of .600 requires you to only hit 53% of your free throws. (Unless my math is totally off on this – .53 x (.44 x 2) = .6). So being given extra free throws to shoot will raise the TS% of just about every NBA player.

My criticisms of David Lee should not be read as a defense of Amare Stoudemire. I’m not sure I’d sign either of them if I was a GM.

And Grant Hill – Landry Fields??? I get that you’re talking about style of play and not quality, but still, Grant Hill in Detroit was the closest thing to Lebron until Lebron himself entered the league.

Yeah, Grant Hill was awesome. Landry is no Grant Hill in his early years. I like the Childress comp.

There is no question that free throws at the end of games raise your ts% (although the effect should be pretty small I would think) My question is why is that a bad thing? It’s not a coincidence that Billups/Nash/Manu/Kobe/Ray/Durant/Westbrook/Dirk get a lot of late game free throws. If those guys were worse free throw shooters than their teammates but getting the shots anyway I could see an argument but obviously that is not the case.

Matt Smith: Since everyone loves a good rumor:Word ’round the block (Hahn) is the possibility we trade DWTDD / our 1st rounder for the rights to Ricky Rubio.We can’t actually trade our 17th pick, but we’d pick for them and trade.

That would be an excellent trade, I was going to suggest a Fields for Rubio trade but that one is even better.

That really would be an excellent trade. Not only that, but if Rubio comes over and plays for the Knicks, he’d be an excellent trade chip to get CP3 if he plays as well as I think he will (and if he exceeds even my expectations then the Knicks can just forget Paul all together and try to get a big man instead).

Brian Cronin: That really would be an excellent trade. Not only that, but if Rubio comes over and plays for the Knicks, he’d be an excellent trade chip to get CP3 if he plays as well as I think he will (and if he exceeds even my expectations then the Knicks can just forget Paul all together and try to get a big man instead).

Word is that Kahn, after spending a week in Spain, has nothing to report. No news is good news (for the Knicks).

Owen:
There is no question that free throws at the end of games raise your ts% (although the effect should be pretty small I would think)

My only issue is that we say Melo is a chucker because he has a TS of 55 and Billups is awesome because he has a TS of 60. So just for the sake of argument, let’s estimate (in very round #s) how big this effect is:

In 09-10, Billups had a TS of 60.1. He shot 512 free throws at a 91% success rate. The Nuggets won 50 games that year. Disclaimer- these are very rough estimates:

Let’s say for argument’s sake that 15 of those games were blowouts and 35 were close enough for the other team to foul. Let’s then say there were an average of 4 FTs that Billups took in that situation. That means he took 140 free throws purely because he was designated the end-of-game-free-throw taker. Then let’s also say the average # of technical fouls per game is 0.3/game (see teamrankings.com) = ~30 technical foul shots, of which Chauncey took 20 (based on time on the court, etc.). So that is 160 FTs, on which he shot 91% = 146 points.

So if we take away 146 points and 160 FTs away from Chauncey we see that his TS drops from 60.1% to 57.3%.

Similarly, let’s give all those free throws to 2009 Melo, a season in which he had a TS of 54.8, which qualifies for THCJ Chucker you suck status. So we are adding 160 FTs at 83% make rate = 133 points to his season totals. We see that his TS goes from 54.8 to 56.4%. Not so bad.

Now obviously I’ve made all kinds of assumptions here about the # of FTs taken etc, but this was just for kicks. Would be interesting to actually track how many of these “free” FTs various players take, and whether it skews our interpretation of players’ “efficiency”.

Frank: Would be interesting to actually track how many of these “free” FTs various players take, and whether itskews our interpretation of players’ “efficiency”.

The FTs aren’t “free” though. They still need to be made, and in most cases the game hangs in the balance. It is essential that these FTs get made. Therefore you want your best FT shooters to take them.

I think the “padding” comes in the form of high volume scorers demanding the ball in these end-of-game situations solely to raise their PPG and thus their payday.

That would skew statistical storytelling more than the TS% problem does.

OOT’er, I think Owen meant Fields as the *current* Grant Hill.
The Childress comparison is sort of apt (surprised to see that Childress had such a bad year) but J-Chill doesn’t make threes or rebound particularly well. He’s supposed to be a better defender than he is currently showing though.

I think the current Hill comparison is sound. They both shoot the three well, have a fairly high ts% and defend the best they can. Hill has the assist edge to Landry’s rebound edge.

As for that Rubio trade, there’s got to be a better trade out there for Minny (the Clippers pick with Bledsoe for instance) but I would be pleased with that. I think they have to move him if they get Irving.

ess-dog:
OOT’er, I think Owen meant Fields as the *current* Grant Hill.
The Childress comparison is sort of apt (surprised to see that Childress had such a bad year) but J-Chill doesn’t make threes or rebound particularly well.He’s supposed to be a better defender than he is currently showing though.

I think the current Hill comparison is sound.They both shoot the three well, have a fairly high ts% and defend the best they can.Hill has the assist edge to Landry’s rebound edge.

As for that Rubio trade, there’s got to be a better trade out there for Minny (the Clippers pick with Bledsoe for instance) but I would be pleased with that.I think they have to move him if they get Irving.

As a rookie, Childress had a TRB% of 11.8; Landry’s was 11.7. After his rookie year, Childress’ rebounding did drop off a bit; we’ll have to see if Landry can keep his rebounding numbers up where they were as a rookie. And you’re right, the main differences between Childress and Landry are that Landry shoots threes better and Childress is (or at least was) a better defender.

About Rubio and a potential trade to the Clips– maybe Rubio wouldn’t play for the Clips. They’re a nice young team but they’re still the Clippers after all, Blake Griffin notwithstanding. I think I’d rather have Toney D than Eric Bledsoe, who I’m pretty underwhelmed with to be honest (sub-.500 TS%, oodles of turnovers).

I think a lot of this depends on how you see Jonny Flynn shaking out. Ridnour is a good backup, but if Kahn wants to keep his job, he’s going to have to be hovering around .500 next season. I personally think Flynn could be a good starting PG, and that his injury plagued year will be put behind him. Hip injuries can be a bear though, so who knows.

That said, Rubio’s made it pretty clear he wants nothing to do with Minnesota. Sooner or later they’re going to have to confront the elephant in the room and get something for him. But while TD and the 17th would work, you’d have to assume another team wouldn’t be willing to offer more. Taking just one example, the Blazers could offer both their picks and some additional flotsam for Rubio (I think they’re picking at #21), giving the T-Wolves even more draft ammunition to toss around. Or the Suns could throw them the 13th pick and Aaron Brooks.

But I agree that, while a pretty big risk, a Ricky Rubio that so much as approaches his ceiling would be pretty amazing.

I don’t think Minnesota takes Toney Douglas back because they’ll have Flynn and Ridnour backing Irving up (if they land him). But if that trade actually happens we could be really dangerous next year. We could trade Billups’ contract to Los Angeles for Blake and Odom and have a chance to contend (if Rubio pans out).

If the Knicks were able to swing a trade with the Wolves (however unlikely), would Rubio’s contract be based upon the rookie scale in 2009, when he was drafted? Or 2011, when he would be signing his contract? There may not be a big difference, but if the Knicks are trying to fill roster spots, every $500K helps.

Actually, David Kahn is a good friend of Donnie Walsh. Kahn also is absolutely infatuated with Rubio. I don’t think he’d trade him. Even if he did trade him, let’s say to the Knicks, Walsh would probably promise Rubio the spot in NY, as that is what he desires. And I don’t think Walsh is a man that would go against his word, nor do I think Dolan has the balls this time around to trump him.

However, I also believe Irving fits the Knicks’ needs AS MUCH as Rubio. If the Wolves win the lottery, given their infatuation with Rubio, would an offer of Douglas, Fields, and the 17th pick land us IRVING, whom I would much rather have.

Then I think it’s more realistic we get CP3. However, it is also possible to build via Irving, A La Rondo. I think with Irving + money saved for a big, it may ultimately be better with CP3 and a skeleton crew. Either way, if he can convince Kahn to give up Irving (or the #1 pick) I think the Knicks would be way more flexible going forward in terms of trade chips, cap management, bigs strategy, whatever.

The thing with Rubio is — he’s only 20. He probably has 12-15 years left in his career, and probably another 3-4 years even before he reaches his prime. Kahn may only have 1 or 2 more years of steering the Twolves into a brick wall. Rubio can afford to wait out Kahn, whereas Kahn may not be able to live down using such a high pick on him and getting nothing back.

If Rubio is highly motivated to go to the Knicks, he can just tell Kahn to trade his rights to the Knicks for something reasonable, such as the #17 pick + TD, or else he’s staying in Spain. This is very similar to the Melo situation – Rubio doesn’t have to come over unless the situation is very favorable for him. And playing in Minnesota winters for a sub-20 win team with no fans is not favorable. Not sure if Rubio is willing to play poker like this, but he certainly could if he was so inclined.

2. Rubio would have to be amenable to the idea of coming to NYC, playing for Mike D’Antoni and passing the ball to Amar’e Stoudemire and Carmelo Anthony. It’s hard to imagine a better scenario for Rubio.

adrenaline, I think the only reason you get that sort of deal for Rubio is because he won’t play in Minnesota. Unless Irving also wants to go play in Europe, I don’t think you get him for anything near douglas and a first rounder. Rubio is definitely a risk, but we have to take risks here if we hope to compete. The major question is would Rubio leave Spain? He just has to wait one more year before he can enter the NBA as an unrestricted free agent.

@45 – no way in the world that TD, who is not a starter on a good team in this league, and the guy that had a PER of 0.3 in these most recent playoffs (Fields) and a #17 pick in a bad draft gets us the #1 pick in the draft.

@36 (Z) – these “free” free throws have nothing to do with how well the player plays efficient basketball – they are gifted free throws that could just as well be given someone else. These are not fouls drawn while taking the ball to the hoop, or and-1’s that turn a shot at the rim into a 3 point possession – things that define high-efficiency players like Lebron, Jordan, etc. It’s fool’s gold when you’re looking at efficiency – which is why we all have this weird feeling about Billups now even though we know that by advanced stats, he’s a great player.

Doug:
This Ricky Rubio thing is blowing my mind right now. There couldn’t have been a more opportune time for him to finally come to the States.

Before you get too excited, keep in mind Hahn is not reporting news. He is asking the question “if you were Kahn would you trade Rubio for Tony Douglas”.

There are a lot of reasons why Rubio would opt to stay in Spain regardless of whether he is traded or not. A) there is going to be a lockout; B) even if there is a season next year, Rubio would be subject to the rookie salary scale which is half the $ he would make playing in Spain; C) if he waits one more year he would no longer be subjectto the rookie salary scale. (does that answer your question TDM?)

woahhh. Let’s calm down with the Rubio chat a little bit? This is the same guy who averaged 6.5, 3 and 3 in the Euroleague this year on 31% shooting (20 games) and 5 pts, 3 boards and 4.5 assists per on 32% shooting in 33 games the Spanish league. And his FIBA World Championship performance was nothing short of flat. He showed absolutely nothing. He’s only 20, and he has got oodles of potential, but anyone who thinks he would play better next year than Toney Douglas would is mistaken. Rubio might have the upside, the potential, and be a far better trading chip, but our team next year WOULD suffer if we traded Toney (and our first) for Rubio. He has done nothing to show he can compete effectively at an NBA level. Oh and he can’t shoot the 3 ball. Not at all.

Finally, how can anyone say that the freebie free-throws for Ts and at the end of the game dont help a player’s TS%? As was demonstrated earlier, all you have to do is shoot 53% to have this boost your TS%. A player who shoots say 85% from the line gets this free boost while someone else who shoots say 80% from the line (meaning they would only miss a handful more of these freebies than the 85% player) does not get this boost. Be the best free throw shooter on your team and you get a 2%ish TS% bump over the second best (and everyone else on your team).

It is a weak draft, and Irving is projected to be a potential all star caliber point guard, but certainly is no Wall or Rose. To be honest, I would prefer Irving’s style more than Rose or Wall for the Knicks. He can knock down 3s, he is a pass first PG. That is essentially what we need. Given Kahn’s manuevering to try to land Rubio, if Rubio agrees to play in Minnesota, I don’t think it’s far fetched to land an Irving. He isn’t even the consensus pick amongst the experts. There is no superstar caliber players in this draft (again according to the scouts, but you never know). We are offering a proven commondity at the 2, which they have ZERO of. They only have Wayne Ellington there at the moment.

Huge glutton of PGs, huge gap in SGs. DWTDD would fill in at the backup 2guard as well as anyone they have. There’s no guaranteed 2guards in this draft either. Fields can fill in the starting role. More rookies is not what that team needs if Kahn plans on keeping his job.

Berman had an article today speculating that Paul will come to the knicks, on the ever so flimsy premise that Earl Monroe, being from the same town as Paul, has some insight on the matter. Got to love the beats….

I was thinking of the current Grant Hill as a comp for Hill. But I desperately want Fields to be better than that…

Frank – If everyone shot the same amount of foul shots, yes, the spread in ts% would narrow considerably. And when everyone shoots the same percentage from the free throw line I expect that to happen.

I know it’s a highlights video, but the dude moves like CP3 on the break, and is tall like J-Kidd. Still, it’s college level, but damn does he seem intriguing on a team like the Knicks, when moving the ball to open players is a premium.

I shouldn’t have made it seem like there was a Knicks connection to the answer. It’s actually a guy I don’t think I ever saw play and have no recollection of ever even being in the league. Such a random player that I felt compelled to put it in question form rather than give the fact outright.

Anyway, the answer is…

Jorge Garbajosa.

(and I see that in the piece above I referred to him as a second round draft selection, which is my bad. No points off for those who were thrown off by my misinformation :)

I know it’s a highlights video, but the dude moves like CP3 on the break, and is tall like J-Kidd. Still, it’s college level, but damn does he seem intriguing on a team like the Knicks, when moving the ball to open players is a premium.

I know it’s a highlights video, but the dude moves like CP3 on the break, and is tall like J-Kidd. Still, it’s college level, but damn does he seem intriguing on a team like the Knicks, when moving the ball to open players is a premium.

Looks like his game might be pretty similar to Sergio Rodriguez- good size, handle, and court vision but not super quick or a great shooter. That might not be such a bad thing- It’d have been interesting to see what S.R. would have done with Amar’e and Melo. I’d be interested to see what Morris’ assist/turnover ratio was- those creative passes look great but you wonder how many of those behind the back passes sail out of bounds. Still, the write-up on nbadraft makes him sound like a pretty solid pick- esp. if we were to pick up another pick and get him later.

nicos: Looks like his game might be pretty similar to Sergio Rodriguez- good size, handle, and court vision but not super quick or a great shooter. That might not be such a bad thing- It’d have been interesting to see what S.R. would have done with Amar’e and Melo. I’d be interested to see what Morris’ assist/turnover ratio was- those creative passes look great but you wonder how many of those behind the back passes sail out of bounds. Still, the write-up on nbadraft makes him sound like a pretty solid pick- esp. if we were to pick up another pick and get him later.

I really do hope there is a quality point guard available when we draft.

Lots of pundits have called Chauncey a starting PG in 2011-2012, but I just don’t see it. I love Chauncey’s game, but he is aging and we should expect injuries this coming year as well.

I think we need a co-PG who can build a mentor/mentee relationship with Chauncey. And if 2011 is anything like the 2009 draft, where we chose Jordan Hill while Brandon Jennings, Jrue Holiday, Ty Lawson, and Jeff Teague were still on the board, I’m going to cry

I’m not saying anything that hasn’t been said on that front. I just hope Donnie’s team has been scouting point guards day and night for the last three months. SSOL needs one. Badly.

“Another thing Morris does that is basic but successful is, he gets the ball to the player that’s hot. Any player that has hit a couple of shots in a row, can be assured that the kid is looking for him.”

I agree that we could use another PG but I think you are not giving Toney enough credit. He increased his assists per 36 up to 4.5 and could probably get over 5 next year if he keeps improving. He is one of our best defenders, a great outside shooter and a good rebounder for a PG. With Melo we don’t necessarily need a “pure” PG because Melo is going to start the offense alot. Not many players have averaged over 15 points 4 assists and 4 rebounds over their first two years and even less with a TS% of over 54%. (Which likely would have been higher if not for his injury)

Douglas is one of the biggest reasons we finished the season strong and while he struggled against Rondo he is still a big piece moving forward. (I would still trade him for Rubio though)

A healthy Douglas next year could surprise alot of people. With a seriously hurt shoulder for most of the year he still shot 37% from 3 with a TS% over 53% and scored 15 points a game. I would take Douglas over Jennings or Teague anyday of the week, and Holiday has alot higher upside but at this point he’s worse than Douglas.

I think our need for size and interior defense trumps our need for PG help. We need both but we need a solid center really badly.

I think the most realistic scenario for us with the 17th pick is drafting Faried. He seems like a good fit, would provide energy and a boost in rebounding and at the very least would have the hands to catch melo’s end of game passes and finish rather throwing the ball onto Kevin garnett’s hands.

If we drafted Faried and added Dalembert on free agency that would certainly revitalize our front line. Does anyone know if we’d still have cap space left to sign Wilson Chandler? That would give us a much deeper team, starting Billups, Fields, Melo, Stat, and Dalembert with Douglas, Chandler, Faried, and Shawne coming off the bench. A good team with both room to improve and some pieces to throw at New Orleans in a potential trade

Owen:
“Another thing Morris does that is basic but successful is, he gets the ball to the player that’s hot. Any player that has hit a couple of shots in a row, can be assured that the kid is looking for him.”

Hard hitting analysis from NBA Draft net….

Did they fail to mention he’s 25% from behind the arc? The college arc?

I know this board is abuzz with dreams of Rubio and CP3, but the focus going into next season must be securing some help at the 5.

And, assuming the Knicks are able to find a starting center to fill their needs, like Dalembert, they still need to add depth at the position. Even if the Knicks draft a guy like Faried in the first round, I’m not confident in a rotation of Dalembert, Faried and Jordan.

I know his sample size is very small, but I’d like to see the Knicks get a guy like Hamed Haddadi for the vets min. It looks like he is foul prone, but for a backup, I think he could provide some solid minutes off the bench. Even a guy like Kwame Brown could be a good pickup. Just a thought.

It’s interesting in the sense that you wouldn’t think they’d be talking about it if they were considering trading down or giving it up for second rounders. They very well could still do that, but this kind of makes it seem like they’re looking forward to the pick. Which, judging by recent history, they should.

@72 I disagree, if we add Dalembert and a solid big like Faried in the draft along with Jordan, Turiaf, ad Stat we should have enough depth at center. Stoudemire will probably play some minutes at center every game no natter who we add so if Dalembert could give us 20-30 minutes that would be great. He wouldn’t be asked to do much offensively, but would provide a much needed defensive presence. Faried, in my opinion, is the kind of guy you cant have enough of, high motor, good strength, great rebounder.

I think once we establish a rotation of bigs with Dalembert, Stat, Faried, Turiaf, and Jordan, we should go after depth at poisitions 1-4. We need someone to come off the bench and provide starting quality minutes (like a Lamar Odom). As I said in my last post, Wilson Chandler would be great in this role (as he was earlier this year)

Should we consider Faried a “big”? he’s only 6’8″ which is more like SF size, or small PF size. I would be very surprised if he ever ends up guarding 5’s except in our stupid switch-everything defense. If we were to draft him, I think we’d be seeing A LOT of Amare at the 5, with Faried and Melo splitting the 3/4 duties when the 3 of them play together.

I don’t think Faried has the skill set to play the 3 at all. If we had a solid 5 I would see Faried’s role as coming in to give Amar’e a blow and perhaps playif the 4 next to Amar’e if wanted to go small. Maybe Faried’s the wrong guy here then… I could see Markieff Morris or Trey Thompkins being good fits as well. Of course if Bismack Biyombo falls to us I think he has to be the pick.

Fair enough, but you have to admit: his shooting fell off a cliff. Two years ago he among the league’s best PGs. Once he loses his quickness, he’s going to be screwed. Billups, Nash, Stockton: all great shooters, and productive into their late 30s. Kidd’s an anomaly, but he’s never been a good shooter at all. I think his rebounding allows him to stay relevant.

The Honorable Cock Jowles: Fair enough, but you have to admit: his shooting fell off a cliff. Two years ago he among the league’s best PGs. Once he loses his quickness, he’s going to be screwed. Billups, Nash, Stockton: all great shooters, and productive into their late 30s. Kidd’s an anomaly, but he’s never been a good shooter at all. I think his rebounding allows him to stay relevant.

If anything, Kidd’s much-improved 3 point shooting is a big part of what’s kept him relevant. He sort of dropped back to his own mean this year, but in the two years previous he shot over 40%. Contrastingly, he posted the second lowest rebounding numbers of his career.

I haven’t watched too much of Morris, but I’ve watched enough to know that he’s already got a much better form than Kidd’s ever had. It’s pretty well known that only in the last few years did Kidd really work on his distance game in the offseason. If Morris commits himself early enough, there’s no reason why he can’t become at least a respectable threat.

I think we should draft Markieff Morris. He’s big, strong, a good-great rebounder, is a good defender, has 3-point range, and apparently “takes a cerebral approach to the game,” so I’m guessing he has a high enough basketball IQ to learn his role and contribute as a rookie.

Re: Darius Morris; he has an excellent mid-range game, so who’s to say he can’t add range to his jumpshot? He has a college TS% of 54.5, which is passable for a guard who misses 75% of his three point shots. He’s a player I wouldn’t be opposed to drafting.